But in covering the Romney press conference(starting at the six minute mark in this video), Denver reporters didn’t ask Romney how this squares with his statement during June 13 GOP presidential debate that U.S. troops should be brought home as soon as possible:

“It’s time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can – as soon as our generals think it’s okay,” Romney said. “One lesson we’ve learned in Afghanistan is that Americans cannot fight another nation’s war of independence.”

Does Romney think that the surge was a success, America has achieved its goals, and so the U.S. is now ready to go home?

And how do both of Romney’s recent statements comport with his Dec. 2009 comments on CNN that he may have added even more U.S. troops to the Afghan surge, if he had been President?

These questions, flowing from Romney’s statements about Obama’s successful surge in Afghanistan, went unasked during Romney’s visit to Denver yesterday.

As recently as January of this year, Romney said U.S. troops should not leave Afghanistan, according to a Boston Globe report.

there’s nothing inconsistent here… apparently he thinks the additional forces were a good idea, thinks he might have sent more himself, and that they shouldn’t have been removed in January; but not believes that they did their job, succeeded, and should come home.

Romney isn’t the only person to have those thoughts, either… it looks like Barack Obama agrees with him.

The President took 9 months to come up with the first ‘surge’ in Afghanistan, which was less than what most of his generals told him he’d need for success, and now he’s timing withdrawals along political, and not military success lines.

How many decades, how many billions a week and how much blood (other people’s, not yours) do you want to spend on this project, Elbee? One decade down, how many to go? You’re a fool if you think your “win” is achievable in the foreseeable future. Or if you think, even in the absence of Taliban, it would all be nice and stable and west friendly. Do you know anything about the last few thousand years of Afghan history? Interesting story about a single British doctor being the only survivor of one particularly nasty British withdrawal.

The most remarkable thing about it is how much remains pretty much the same over all those centuries and how similar the fate of centuries worth of various invaders. Everybody eventually goes home empty handed and every Afghan knows that they will. It’s just a matter of how much it’s going to cost us before we join the club.

Spout your made-up bullshit somewhere else.President Obama did not wait 9 months to start making plans for AFPAK – he started on it right after he got into office! And those plans were implemented within 9 months.

Mr. Obama formally ends a 92-day review of the war in Afghanistan Tuesday night with a nationally broadcast address in which he will lay out his revamped strategy from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. He began rolling out his decision Sunday night, informing key administration officials, military advisers and foreign allies in a series of private meetings and phone calls that stretched into Monday.

Military officials said at least one group of Marines is expected to deploy within two or three weeks of Mr. Obama’s announcement, and would be in Afghanistan by Christmas. Larger deployments wouldn’t be able to follow until early in 2010.

The initial infusion is a recognition by the administration that something tangible needs to happen quickly, officials said. The quick addition of Marines would provide badly needed reinforcements to those fighting against Taliban gains in the southern Helmand province, and could lend reassurance to both Afghans and a war-weary U.S. public.

Speaking to “Early Show” co-anchor Harry Smith Tuesday morning, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs defended the months-long process of deliberation Mr. Obama took to make his final decision.

“Everybody involved really worked hard with the President to make this policy better than it would have been had we announced it after only a week,” said Gibbs.

Thirty thousand more troops would be 10,000 fewer than Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander in Afghanistan, requested, reports CBS News correspondent David Martin. The president hopes to make up at least some of the difference with contributions from NATO allies.

I doubt that anything like what you describe is behind the latest one. But you are right that sometimes people change their minds for perfectly good reasons, such as perceiving a changing reality or understanding that past perceptions may have been mistaken. Every change of stance on issues doesn’t deserve to be derided as a flip-flop. Just don’t see much evidence that Mitten’s are predicated on principle rather than political expedience. But, to be fair, I’m considering it. Done. Considered and rejected as too far fetched.

His statements don’t conflict. We sent troops in. They’ve done a great job. Time to deliberate seriously about getting them out. I’m glad he’s taken this position and I’m glad that Obama is doing so as well.

Romney got caught in the span of two years being a talking point robot depending on his audience. That’s why he was praising the hawkish position on Afghanistan in 2009, but criticizing timelines, because that’s how Republicans were supposed to attack Obama back then. Now he’s criticizing the Afghanistan war and saying we should leave, because that’s where the polls are, and he’s getting national attention for it, but he has to square these feelings with his old position. But that won’t stop him from sounding different themes in front of small groups or local media.

“to be fair” from cd and “to be accurate” from you. Guess we’re the “fair and accurate” blog. Uh-oh… In any case viewing Mittens every convenient change as a merely coincidental matter of principle having nothing to do with audience, feedback or political ambitions is tough to swallow. I think that’s what the thread is about, Maine. To swallow or not to swallow Mittens as an exemplar of principled integrity. And yes, I know. Dems have expedient revelations, too. Fair and accurate all round.

On the second point. I think that the GOP will nominate a clown, however, thus I believe your post is somewhat of a non-sequitur.

It is because he is reasonable he will be by-passed…

Romney might get it, but he keeps opening his mouth and saying things that could be construed as reasonable–like a belief in science. Then opening his mouth again, with an opposite position. That will not do.

Bachmann still has time to flame out, Palin wants to sell books so she’ll stay out, but keep suggesting she just might, ya know?, to keep the interest and proceeds rolling in, and perhaps to get another family vacation or two out of her Sarah PAC contributors.

T-Paw might break double digits eventually. Rick Perry, third world governor and would be secessionist? Roan Paul? The pizza guy who believes in a religious test in the US for public service (hey, the Constitution never meant we should allow non-Christians to serve!)?

Or, perhaps, Newt will take the world by storm reaching out to the kids who clearly make up his base via all that exciting ‘new’ stuff like the intertubz!

I know maybe it’ll be Little Ricky ‘so what if its incest’ Santorum?

That Huntsman is the least clown-like among them is, in fact, his greatest liability.